Talk:Osho Timeline 1970

From The Sannyas Wiki
Revision as of 15:14, 12 August 2015 by Rudra (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

obsolete stuff deleted


Oct 1 entries: -- 1 Oct 1970 / Bombay, India (English) (Dynamics of Meditation, # 7 and # 10) -- is not supported by CD ROM, nor, it would seem, by reality, though it may be in some book. Makes dates in books less sacrosanct.

This letter -- 1 Oct 1970 / (Hindi) (Prem Ke Phool / Flowers of Love, # 95) -- may also be suspect. doofus-9 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2014 (PST)


Okay, "Dynamics of Meditation" entry has been changed. Formerly it read:

1 Oct 1970 / Mumbai(Bombay), India (English)
Dynamics of Meditation, # 7 and # 10

This, as said above, did not work, since it was right in the middle of the camp in Manali where Osho gave sannyas to the first group. The "truth" of this entry has now sort of been found, in Sugit's spreadsheet for Dynamics. There are no chapters in that spreadsheet dated Oct 1 1970. Chapter 7 is dated only Oct 1970, no day, and chapter 10 Nov 1970, no day, so the entry in the 1970 timeline has been appropriately updated. -- doofus-9 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2015 (PST)


Speaking of 1970 and following years: For "29 Nov 1970 am" I read "Gita Darshan Vol 1 / Gita Darshan, # 1". What do these two designations refer to exactly? Apparently not the book, but also not the mp3's. (Sarlo) proposes to use "inserting talks dates as given by Doc X". Do I see right that this has not been implemented here? (I am in the process of trying to tag OW's Hindi mp3's with dates.)

Btw maybe we could use adhyaya in stead of Vol as a name of the parts. This adheres more to the subject of the talks. (The only hitch with this that the first 18 are on adhyayas 1 & 2.)

And a separate question: any comment on the use of "Gita" (as used in this wiki as a standard) and "Geeta" as used by e.g. OW for their mp3-naming ? --Sugit (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


Such dating in the timeline as can be done, ie with clear and uncontested info, has been done. Until we find a new source (which may also have its issues and therefore need to be sifted and weighed against other sources), we will likely not be able to proceed further. Audio could be a source, if, say, Hindi audios were given an introduction (captioned as it were) by another voice announcing time and place, but i believe all the audios available these days have had that info removed by OIF (ever helpful).

"Vol" rather than "adhyaya" is the terminology used by Doc X and Neeten and the audio sites. In the absence of hard copy or another new source using the term adhyaya, it doesn't seem like such a good idea to leap into that. Existing hard copy with legible cover images uses the term भाग (Bhag, meaning part, as is done for many Hindi titles), see Gita Darshan, Vol 1 (गीता दर्शन, भाग एक) for example, but our English convention seems to lean more to Vol, not entirely consistently. (And no commas in the cover img either.)

Basically, Gita Darshan, with its 8- and 18-vol systems is a mess, and may have to stay that way for a while. (And yes, 18 is really 17 in terms of purported actual countable book volumes, since #1 and #2 are always thrown together in every reckoning.)

About "Gita Darshan Vol 1 / Gita Darshan, # 1", it is like this to go along with the wiki system of Hindi title first, without the Devanagari, followed by English translation title, with ch #. In some places, Hindi and English ch #s will be different, so both will be entered separately. In the case of Gita Darshan, titles are identical in Hindi and English, so there appears to be a kind of duplication, but it is not.

And about "Gita" vs "Geeta", Hindi transliteration is an inconsistent business. Uniform standards do not exist. And it appears that Indians are usually not very fussy about that, so either could be used without offending anyone. The reasons for preferring Gita over Geeta include: 1) This is the version used by Videh and Chidananda on the cover of their translation. 2) Gita is used far more often when referring to Bhagavad Gita/Geeta, the source doc. 3) That's the way the wiki has used it since day one, and changing it would be a lot of work. 4) Geeta is used more often, though also not consistently, for Indian women's names. -- doofus-9 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


OK, anyway, for the tagging of our Hindi lectures I am trying to stick as much as possible to wiki usage.

Let me just add: what an amazing Work you guys did with identifying the Hindi lectures! --Sugit (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Ceterum autem censeo adding Archive Code / Lecture ID to all date-line records.

Including for Hindi talks, for which new Archive codes must be devised.

And including an unequivocal system for talks outside the 0=am 5=pm format. --Sugit (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


The lines for 28 Sep 1970 pm and 2 Oct 1970 pm maybe duplicated by accident? --Sugit (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


why would there be duplicates? they are seralatlt=y